Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Into Darkness had more flaws imo than Nemesis. At least it wasn't a remake (a reverse one, granted with Into Darkness), along with acting that wasn't even good at all by a lot of the cast.

Actually that what I think of NEMESIS.

But I really don't mind the 'remake' of TWOK with Data sacrificing himself for Picard all that much.
Its just a shame to me that Data had to die. I wish it had been Riker instead. LOL.
You see I have this vision of Data surviving through the years way after TNG. And linking any future Star Trek series with the past.

What makes the most sense is that a Lore story was considered but then dropped in favor of "B-4" because Lore had been written originally by others, and the producers of Nemesis didn't want to share credit and/or didn't want to pay whatever amount may have been demanded for the rights to the character.

(The whole idea of a Soong android being detectable from such a distance is just weak. It makes about as much sense as the locals in "The Mark of Gideon" being able to construct a convincing 1:1 Enterprise scale model despite not even being Federation members, and despite the planet obviously being too crowded to build such a thing.)

I think that what he meant was that they mention Lore, not that he actually appear. They find another copy of Data, and are way too quick to trust him. They could have mentioned Lore as a justification for being suspicious of B-4. What was really stupid is that Shinzon, who has only days to live and needs Picard's blood, decides to put B-4 on a barren planet near the neutral zone and just kind of assumes that a. he'll be detected by Stafleet, and b. that the Enterprise will be the one to find him. Not only that, but the planet is full of hostile aliens with guns and Shinzon decides to scatter B-4 in pieces all over the place so that Picard has to spend most of the day driving around picking up the pieces while being shot at. So Shinzon wastes time that he doesn't have for no good reason and puts Picard in a situation where he could easily have been killed, at which point Shinzon would have been completely screwed. Like I said, Shinzon is the most idiotic movie villain in ST history.

The Old Mixer wrote:

Finished the rewatch...the film is just a mess. As others have stated, so many missed opportunities.

Was B4 necessary to the plot at all? Seems like he easily could have been written out. Spiner is so busy playing B4 in this one that I feel like we're not getting enough of Data is his final appearance.

Also, it seems like the whole story could have been tighter. There are two separate parts of the film where Picard is on the Scimitar and Data goes after him. They could have tightened those beats into a single sequence. Have Data sacrifice himself saving Picard instead of stopping a contrived McGuffin.

I also wasn't fond of how the Enterprise and its allies flailed about helplessly fighting an overpowered uber-ship. If they wanted to ape TWOK, they should have paid more attention to the battle, which was more about matching wits with evenly-matched ships.

Amazing how fans now love this movie despite its flaws, but hate Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness for what they consider plot 'flaws'.

Huh? You quoted three people who basically say that the film sucked, and then you use that as your basis for saying how fans loved it?

Random_Spock wrote:

Into Darkness had more flaws imo than Nemesis.

Sorry, no. There wasn't a single thing in Nemesis that made any kind of sense whatsoever.

I just think it's harder to defend Star Trek Nemesis when it comes to the elements that drowned it. I'm not a fan of Star Trek being all about action, but I can understand why a lot of decisions behind JJ's first Star Trek movie had to have those action scenes. But Nemesis? How can you defend the Dune Buggy scene? It doesn't do anything at all for the film, story or characters. You could end the scene right after B4's head says "Fascinating" and there would be nothing lost at all. And why does Shinzon have to be a clone of Picard when the two are nothing alike and doesn't even take into account Picard's artificial heart? They made such a big deal about the experience of one's life shaping who they turn out to be, yet they literally retcon the biggest life changing moment for Picard out of the story so they can have a "Your heart, your eyes are the same as mine". They had the perfect, tangible proof of that argument and they don't do anything with it.

If they didn't have the dune buggy scene, the first hour of the movie would have been almost completely action-less, and the entire movie would have taken place on sets. It opened up the movie and helped the pacing of the first half.

If they didn't have the dune buggy scene, the first hour of the movie would have been almost completely action-less, and the entire movie would have taken place on sets. It opened up the movie and helped the pacing of the first half.

Oh. Did it? I'm sorry, I couldn't notice the apparently beautifully even pacing over the mind-numbing stupidity of the scene.

Not sure who loves it, but hope you weren't saying that I do...don't know how you could have gotten that from my posts....

I was implying about fans in general, not you.

Dukhat wrote:

Huh? You quoted three people who basically say that the film sucked, and then you use that as your basis for saying how fans loved it?

I was talking about the fans who like (or love) Nemesis now and use it to bash Star Trek & Star Trek Into Darkness-I'm not agreeing with them.

urbandefault wrote:

Ok, I'm gonna throw in another "Huh?" on this one. Call me dense, but I'm not getting the point.

The word metrosexual is used in a negative (homophobic?) sense here, implying the the two recent movies were made only for these guys. I still stand by what I said about how they feel about youth, as well.

If they didn't have the dune buggy scene, the first hour of the movie would have been almost completely action-less, and the entire movie would have taken place on sets. It opened up the movie and helped the pacing of the first half.

First, you should never have to rely on pointless action scenes in order to have the audience invested in the movie. Second, I'm not saying that having an action scene at this point in the film is a bad idea. I just prefer an action scene that actually does something. If you look at Star Trek II, no action scene is wasted and everything that goes on is essential. You cannot skip Khan's ambush and expect the story to be coherent afterwards. The Enterprise needs to be crippled, and Khan needs to take Kirk more seriously. What comes out shooting the primitive natives of this planet in a Dune Buggy?

The dune buggy scene was made worse by the fact that they completely ignored the existence and the experiences the crew had with Lore.

Also, in the battle in the Rift with Shinzon...why does everybody on he bridge keep looking up when the Scimitar is firing from above? What would they be looking for? Even that window on the Enterprise-D wouldn't have been of any use to show anything the instruments couldn't. Probably more out of touch direction from Baird.

I like Tom Hardy and consider him a more than capable actor, but yes, I think if Stewart would have played the role of Shinzon, it would have been more engaging. For me, the dune buggy scene is the second most "meh" moment in the film, right behind the whole "prepare to deploy the tediously slow super destruction device!" scene with the Scimitar.

There are some very good moments in the movie, but the bad does outweigh the good, just in my opinion of course. I just feel the whole movie was very indulgent, and as much as I love the TNG cast (and I really do), it felt more like they were just futzing around to run out the clock rather than doing any real story building. Again, just my two cents, because I know there are a number of people who really enjoy Nemesis, and I don't want them thinking I'm trying to take that away from them.

As a straight up space type action movie, Nemesis is pretty good. I've warmed up to it over the years, but as a TNG Star Trek movie, it just feels off. With the way the characters behave in the film, they just seemed like different people entirely.

I think that NEM and what all the Star Trek movies lack is a sympathetic villain. One badd ass guy/girl who the audience can secretly barrack for.
A good villain makes the hero seem better. By making Shinzon so pathetic it makes Picard look weak when he can't defeat him.
The same applies to the TOS and nuTrek movies as well. There was potential to have sympathy for Khan but it is ruined by all the senseless killing.

In one Star Trek movie I'd like there to be an anti-hero who the hero and the audience regrets their demise. I'm thinking female Romulan Commander or someone like Sran.